Reed v. Reed

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Reed v. Reed

180 A.D.2d 1006, 580 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2884

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedFebruary 27, 1992

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 180 A.D.2d 1006 (Reed v. Reed) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Reed v. Reed, 180 A.D.2d 1006, 580 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2884 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1992).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order oif the Supreme Court (Peter Patsalos, J.), entered June 27, 1990 in Orange County, which denied plaintiffs motion to conform the judgment of divorce to the stipulation of settlement.

Contrary to plaintiffs contentions, the provisions of the stipulation of settlement and the judgment of divorce concerning defendant’s interest in plaintiffs pension benefits are consistent with each other. We also reject plaintiffs c.laim that under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (1) (c) and as a matter of public policy the parties could not enter into an agreement as to how postdivorce pension benefits could be divided (cf., Biddlecom v Biddlecom, 113 AD2d 66). Furthermore, there is no indication that the agreement was not fair or reasonable and plaintiff has presented no evidence of fraud, mistake or duress entitling him to reformation of the agreement. Plaintiff was represented by counsel throughout the negotiation of both the stipulation and the judgment and, as Supreme Court noted, no affidavit by plaintiffs former counsel was presented [1007]*1007to support the motion to conform the judgment. Under these circumstances, the court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion should be upheld (see, supra).

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Levine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Appeal (transferred to this court by order of the Appellate Division, Second Department) from an order oif the Supreme Court (Peter Patsalos, J.), entered June 27, 1990 in Orange County, which denied plaintiffs motion to conform the judgment of divorce to the stipulation of settlement.

Contrary to plaintiffs contentions, the provisions of the stipulation of settlement and the judgment of divorce concerning defendant’s interest in plaintiffs pension benefits are consistent with each other. We also reject plaintiffs c.laim that under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (1) (c) and as a matter of public policy the parties could not enter into an agreement as to how postdivorce pension benefits could be divided (cf., Biddlecom v Biddlecom, 113 AD2d 66). Furthermore, there is no indication that the agreement was not fair or reasonable and plaintiff has presented no evidence of fraud, mistake or duress entitling him to reformation of the agreement. Plaintiff was represented by counsel throughout the negotiation of both the stipulation and the judgment and, as Supreme Court noted, no affidavit by plaintiffs former counsel was presented [1007]*1007to support the motion to conform the judgment. Under these circumstances, the court’s denial of plaintiff’s motion should be upheld (see, supra).

Weiss, P. J., Mikoll, Yesawich Jr. and Levine, JJ., concur. Ordered that the order is affirmed, with costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

180 A.D.2d 1006, 580 N.Y.S.2d 572, 1992 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2884, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/reed-v-reed-nyappdiv-1992.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack